Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
23 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Define judicial activism |
A court prepared to break new constitutional ground, strike down state and federal laws, and overturn previous courts' decisions (precedent) |
|
|
Define judicial restraint |
A court unlikely to hear cases, let alone break constitutional ground, and will usually respect past precedent. Will also avoid striking down laws |
|
|
Warren and early Burger court favoured liberal activism |
Brown v Board 1954 Mapp v Ohio 1961 Grisworld v Connecticut 1965 Furman v Georgia 1972 Roe v Wade 1973 California v Bakke 1977 |
|
|
Rehnquist and Roberts courts act with restraint |
PP Casey Herring v Us |
|
|
O'Connor and Kennedy have refused to overturn Roe - and... |
Miranda - California - Grutter v Bollinger Engel - Santa Fe v Doe |
|
|
Roberts occasionally joins the Liberals to stop conservative activism |
Obergefell Fisher Florida Sibelius |
|
|
O'Connor and Kennedy were v important - conservative majorities in... |
Duckworth v Eagen Gonzalez v Carhart CU V FEC |
|
|
Conservatives have eroded Roe Miranda and Mapp |
PP / Harris Duckworth v Eagen Herring v US |
|
|
Conservative critics complain of Liberal policy making |
Brown Roe Texas Florida Obergefll |
|
|
With O'Connor gone, Kennedy is most important - often backing the Conservatives |
Gonzalez v Carhart CU V FEC Maryland v King Burwell v Hobby Lobby |
|
|
Expansion of rights |
Brown Mapp Miranda Gideon Roe Texas Florida Obergefell |
|
|
Court will make decisions politicians will not |
Texas Obergefell Cali Snyder Brown Austin |
|
|
The court has failed to act against hysteria |
Bowers v Hardwick Plessey v Ferguson Korematsu v US |
|
|
A change in compositions means erosion of rights |
PP Webster Gonzalez |
|
|
Alito replacing O'Connor has seen a greater restriction of rights |
Gonzalez Shelby MAryland |
|
|
The protection of some rights infringes upon others |
Snyder v Phelps DC v Heller McCullen v Coakley |
|
|
Supreme Court has too much power |
Strike down popular laws Checks are ineffective Policy making Socially unrepresentative Political |
|
|
Does not have too much power |
Protects rights, making decisions others won't Unanimosity = legal body Independent from their appointing President Checks No power to enforce |
|
|
Court has too little power |
Have to wait, appellate Can only hear a few cases - time restrictions Expected to follow precedent Subject to numerous checks Cannot enforce Limited by the document |
|
|
Arguments for the confirmation process |
Unacceptable candidates are rejected (Bork, Carswell, Haynesworth) Nominations are usually v well qualified (Roberts, law review - Sotomayor, Ivy League - Kagan, first female SG and dean) Minorities are represented (Women, AA, Latina) Independent from appointing President |
|
|
Arguments against the process |
Less qualified get through (Thomas) Political (Roberts and Alito for conservative, expert Bork rejected, Alito 58-42 party lines) |
|
|
Supreme Court is independent |
Not subject to public approval Sam Chase 1805 was impeached Resisted pressure from Presidents Often upholds precedent Unanimity = legal |
|
|
Supreme Court is not independent |
Influenced by public pressure Stay true to Presidents Bush v Gore Political Reliant upon others |
